42 U.S.C. § 12203
Prohibition against retaliation and coercion
No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.
It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.
The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III, respectively.
This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 101–336,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,080
cases (924 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). “BIRCH, Circuit Judge: The Americans with Disabilities Act, § 503, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (1995) (“ADA” or “the Act”), prohibits retaliation against an individual who has “opposed any act or practice made unlawful by” the Act’s anti-discrimination provisions.”
G. v. The Fay Sch., 931 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019). “In the only claims remaining on appeal, the family alleges unlawful retaliation for demands for an accommodation for G's condition in violation of Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a), breach of contract, and misrepresentation.”
Adem A. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007). “As a matter of first impression, we hold that individuals are not amenable to private suit for violating the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 , where the act or practice opposed by the plaintiff is made unlawful by the ADA provisions concerning employment, 42…”
Gregory Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc, 283 F.3d 561 (3rd Cir. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a); 29 U.S.C. § 623 (d); 43 Pa.”
A Soc'y Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2011). “" 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a). To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the ADA, plaintiffs must allege (1) that they engaged in protected conduct, (2) that they suffered an adverse action, and (3) that a causal link exists between the protected conduct and the adverse…”
Rachel Post v. Trinity Health-Michigan, 44 F.4th 572 (6th Cir. 2022). “42 U.S.C. § 12203 (b). Congress wrote this text in the passive voice without identifying the subject of its prohibition (that is, the party who cannot engage in the unlawful interference).”
Cassandra Menoken v. Janet Dhillon, 975 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “Following oral argument, the court ordered supplemental briefing on (1) the proper legal standard for an interference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (b), and (2) whether the amended complaint stated a claim for interference under the proper standard.”
Angelo Binno v. The Am. Bar Ass'n, 826 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2016). “§ 12189 , and Section 503 of Title V, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (b). In his amended complaint, Binno claimed that the ABA “has ‘offered’ and continues to ‘offer’ a discriminatory examination” in violation of Title III of the ADA.”
Michigan Flyer LLC v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., 860 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2017). “MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs brought suit for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a). The district court dismissed the lawsuit holding that “individual,” as used in the statute, did not protect corporate entities.”
Brenda Brown v. City of Tucson, a Mun. Corp. of the State of Arizona, 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2003). “Specifically, Brown claimed that the investigation and disciplinary action taken against her amounted to retaliation in violation of § 503(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a), and that the behavior of Department officials-chiefly Holliday-constituted acts of interference,…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015). “§ 12112 (a), (b)(5)(A)), and that it discharged her in retaliation for filing her charge (violating 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a)). On June 29, 2012, Ford moved for summary judgment.”
Foster v. Mountain Coal Co., 830 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2016). “Eugene Foster appeals from a district-court order granting summary judgment in favor of Mountain Coal Company, LLC (Mountain Coal) on his retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (a). Specifically, Foster appeals the district court’s…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) — 16 cases
Diane Lovejoy-Wilson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Noco Motor Fuel, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 263 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2001).
Conrad v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Commissioners, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002).
Burnett v. W. Resources, Inc., 929 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Kan. 1996).
Parkinson v. Anne Arundel Med. Ctr., Inc., 214 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D. Maryland 2002).
Cranfield v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (N.D. Ohio 2022).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)(b) — 1 case
Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC (E.D. Mo. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) — 8 cases
Logan v. Matveevskii, 175 F. Supp. 3d 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Conrad v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Commissioners, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002).
Bingham v. Oregon Sch. Activities Ass'n, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Or. 1998).
MENDEN VAZQUEZ v. Tribunal Gen. De Justicia, 477 F. Supp. 2d 406 (D.P.R. 2007).
(PS) Brewer v. California State Bar (E.D. Cal. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.